British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WDTBD
You say that anyones Ts and Cs could be changed by imposition at any time. This may be true, but with regards to crewing levels, the courts have already landed on side with BA....they are not contractual.
The other point is that any forward thinking union would have negotiated change rather than stonewalling the company that pays its members. Your union is solely responsible for the position that you find yourself in now.
You say that anyones Ts and Cs could be changed by imposition at any time. This may be true, but with regards to crewing levels, the courts have already landed on side with BA....they are not contractual.
The other point is that any forward thinking union would have negotiated change rather than stonewalling the company that pays its members. Your union is solely responsible for the position that you find yourself in now.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the flying nunn
Are you still a member of BASSA? I get the feeling you went to work during the strike. You should have resigned from the union on the same day you crossed the picket line. Why are you still a member? To have a vote in the next ballot? It sounds like a waste of money to me if that's your only reason.
Maybe you would be better off supporting the PCCC who don't even have the courage to reveal their identities. I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that. All they are doing is hiding behind a computer screen. Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?
Are you still a member of BASSA? I get the feeling you went to work during the strike. You should have resigned from the union on the same day you crossed the picket line. Why are you still a member? To have a vote in the next ballot? It sounds like a waste of money to me if that's your only reason.
Maybe you would be better off supporting the PCCC who don't even have the courage to reveal their identities. I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that. All they are doing is hiding behind a computer screen. Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Mr Bunker.
If I may pick up a couple of points.
BA do, unfortunately compare our SH product with EZ and RYR, when searching for cost savings. Despite the acknowledgement that BA SH feeds BA LH and because of that can be seen as inefficient in comparisson.
The outright cheek of BA. So, BA cabin crew were warned about not upgrading friends of friends and those on staff travel. Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.
Despite this many crew looked after one another, (flight and cabin), onboard. Recent events have changed matters. Some crew have felt it inappropriate for pilots to be working as crew, intruding and prolonging our dispute. Based on evidence provided by BA, and listed above, they have declined cooperation on requested unofficial upgrades. Further, those crew who have lost staff travel consider it bad form to be serving a friend of friend upgrade when they nolonger have the option of even a jump seat.
How have BA responded. Re-written the fraud policy which will now clearly states that the Captain can upgrade who he/she desires. The policy will exempt Captains. This is the result of edgy crew refusing to move people onboard - and can you honestly blame them. The general feeling is that BA is on a witch hunt and should one place a foot wrong, your out. Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.
If I may pick up a couple of points.
BA do, unfortunately compare our SH product with EZ and RYR, when searching for cost savings. Despite the acknowledgement that BA SH feeds BA LH and because of that can be seen as inefficient in comparisson.
The outright cheek of BA. So, BA cabin crew were warned about not upgrading friends of friends and those on staff travel. Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.
Despite this many crew looked after one another, (flight and cabin), onboard. Recent events have changed matters. Some crew have felt it inappropriate for pilots to be working as crew, intruding and prolonging our dispute. Based on evidence provided by BA, and listed above, they have declined cooperation on requested unofficial upgrades. Further, those crew who have lost staff travel consider it bad form to be serving a friend of friend upgrade when they nolonger have the option of even a jump seat.
How have BA responded. Re-written the fraud policy which will now clearly states that the Captain can upgrade who he/she desires. The policy will exempt Captains. This is the result of edgy crew refusing to move people onboard - and can you honestly blame them. The general feeling is that BA is on a witch hunt and should one place a foot wrong, your out. Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that.
I would consider such a failure to represent my interests unforgivable.
Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?
Why do you seem to struggle with the possibility that a number of your colleagues are unhappy with the way they've been represented by Unite and have, unprompted by BA. decided to come together to form another body which they feel will serve their interests better?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767,
That's not quite what's happening at all. BA haven't re-written the policy to suit Captains. They've acknowledged that the example used in BASI13 did not meet the definition of deception or fraud (as there was no pecuniary advantage involved) and, as such, is being re-written to amend that. It just happens to have coincided with crew trying to make a stand over the issue after losing their staff travel. Like it or not, the reference to captain's authority has never changed in the JPM and is the master document with regard to behaviour and authority on board. I think all that's now happening is that BA are firmly making clear what has always been the case - the captain is in charge, of everyone and everything, on board the aircraft once the doors are closed. Now I know some crew will balk at that but it's the case both corporately and legally.
Basically, at the risk of sounding glib, it was a nice try by the offended strikers but BA aren't weathering it. Indeed, of the reports made so far, none have come to anything. That's not because there's one law for one group and one for another. It's because BA have never regarded those incidents as fraud - sadly BASI13 wasn't well worded, a fact BA have acknowledged. I think it's important to note here that it's not whether a crew manager, or indeed the head of IFCE, says it's against the rules. It's whether Asset Protection (who's job it is to, funnily enough, protect BA's assets and define what constitutes a loss to the company) deem it to be deception and fraud and it seems at the moment, they don't. If CSDs want to note it that's fine. Equally they'll have to accept that our department has told us it's inappropriate for those CSDs to ask for our signature on the onboard form or otherwise in those cases. It's not a witch hunt. That's the basic emotional error made by many cabin crew in this dispute. No one in the higher levels of BA either loves or hates you. There's a business dispute and that's that. At least from BA's point of view.
So report away if the mood takes you. It'll likely come to nothing and may even bite you on the proverbial.
MrB
That's not quite what's happening at all. BA haven't re-written the policy to suit Captains. They've acknowledged that the example used in BASI13 did not meet the definition of deception or fraud (as there was no pecuniary advantage involved) and, as such, is being re-written to amend that. It just happens to have coincided with crew trying to make a stand over the issue after losing their staff travel. Like it or not, the reference to captain's authority has never changed in the JPM and is the master document with regard to behaviour and authority on board. I think all that's now happening is that BA are firmly making clear what has always been the case - the captain is in charge, of everyone and everything, on board the aircraft once the doors are closed. Now I know some crew will balk at that but it's the case both corporately and legally.
Basically, at the risk of sounding glib, it was a nice try by the offended strikers but BA aren't weathering it. Indeed, of the reports made so far, none have come to anything. That's not because there's one law for one group and one for another. It's because BA have never regarded those incidents as fraud - sadly BASI13 wasn't well worded, a fact BA have acknowledged. I think it's important to note here that it's not whether a crew manager, or indeed the head of IFCE, says it's against the rules. It's whether Asset Protection (who's job it is to, funnily enough, protect BA's assets and define what constitutes a loss to the company) deem it to be deception and fraud and it seems at the moment, they don't. If CSDs want to note it that's fine. Equally they'll have to accept that our department has told us it's inappropriate for those CSDs to ask for our signature on the onboard form or otherwise in those cases. It's not a witch hunt. That's the basic emotional error made by many cabin crew in this dispute. No one in the higher levels of BA either loves or hates you. There's a business dispute and that's that. At least from BA's point of view.
So report away if the mood takes you. It'll likely come to nothing and may even bite you on the proverbial.
MrB
Join Date: May 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll come back when ...
Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.
"we'll come back when ... " list
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767,
To add to my point I note that some crew still feel that it's fraud even if the company don't think so. I'd point out that as no deception of the company is taking place (they know it's going on) and there's no pecuniary advantage for the individual that this meets no definition of fraud other than that cooked up in the brains of strikers desperate to have a scalp or two.
MrB
PS Whilst I'm lying on the sofa waiting for my back to heal, I'm watching a South Park (yup, that's my mental level) episode where Canada goes on strike. It's surprisingly prescient.......
To add to my point I note that some crew still feel that it's fraud even if the company don't think so. I'd point out that as no deception of the company is taking place (they know it's going on) and there's no pecuniary advantage for the individual that this meets no definition of fraud other than that cooked up in the brains of strikers desperate to have a scalp or two.
MrB
PS Whilst I'm lying on the sofa waiting for my back to heal, I'm watching a South Park (yup, that's my mental level) episode where Canada goes on strike. It's surprisingly prescient.......
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
I did not vote for the strike action, my views and the views of other members that did not believe the propoganda were not even acknowledged as existing let alone heard. I realised long before christmas that the bassa leadership had an agenda quite seperate to the proclaimed one of looking after our futures so why wouldn't I have crossed the picket line?
I feel that your demand for me to leave the union now perfectly illustrates the arrogance that started this madness and has led us to the point where you have lost earnings and staff travel only to reflect that in hindsight the deal on offer before the strikes started wasn't that bad after all.
My belief is that at the next ballot the voters will actually seriously consider where to put their X. In the past the membership have simply followed the views and positions imposed upon them from the bassa leadership, this time I think we will see a more considered result.
After almost two decades of paying my membership fees I feel that the money
I pay between now and the ballot will be the best money I have spent in all the time since I joined.
Miss M I am not asking you to tell us here how you will vote but I do hope that when you open the envelope, you take a minute or two to consider what you are voting for.
I did not vote for the strike action, my views and the views of other members that did not believe the propoganda were not even acknowledged as existing let alone heard. I realised long before christmas that the bassa leadership had an agenda quite seperate to the proclaimed one of looking after our futures so why wouldn't I have crossed the picket line?
I feel that your demand for me to leave the union now perfectly illustrates the arrogance that started this madness and has led us to the point where you have lost earnings and staff travel only to reflect that in hindsight the deal on offer before the strikes started wasn't that bad after all.
My belief is that at the next ballot the voters will actually seriously consider where to put their X. In the past the membership have simply followed the views and positions imposed upon them from the bassa leadership, this time I think we will see a more considered result.
After almost two decades of paying my membership fees I feel that the money
I pay between now and the ballot will be the best money I have spent in all the time since I joined.
Miss M I am not asking you to tell us here how you will vote but I do hope that when you open the envelope, you take a minute or two to consider what you are voting for.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM the FlyingNun does have a fair point and is certainly not in a minority I might even go as far to say a majority. Along with all those hard working people down at LGW BASSA has largely disenfranchised itself from a significant percentage of it's members.
Any union should be 'Of the members, by the members and for the members'.
Any union should be 'Of the members, by the members and for the members'.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Mr Bunker.
I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.
Now, I'll happily accept they are technically wrong, but they believe they are correct because of what they are told by BA. Ironic perhaps, but those in the know do so because a cabin crew member wrote to the head of asset protection for a definative answer. The rest is history, the policy is flawed and will be re-written. In the meantime the company has made no official announcement, it seems BA is happy to see continuing deterioration of the relationship between IFCE and the rest of BA.
My view is different to the majority, but I accept the majority view because they have been told no different. I believe the situation is likely to turn around and bite cabin crew on their backsides, (in particular when staff travel is returned!), and I will do my best to re-educate. But its not my job and I'm not a red notice, so I'm having little effect.
It does seem to me to be another company mess which just happens to be a useful tool for alienation and barrier building.
I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.
Now, I'll happily accept they are technically wrong, but they believe they are correct because of what they are told by BA. Ironic perhaps, but those in the know do so because a cabin crew member wrote to the head of asset protection for a definative answer. The rest is history, the policy is flawed and will be re-written. In the meantime the company has made no official announcement, it seems BA is happy to see continuing deterioration of the relationship between IFCE and the rest of BA.
My view is different to the majority, but I accept the majority view because they have been told no different. I believe the situation is likely to turn around and bite cabin crew on their backsides, (in particular when staff travel is returned!), and I will do my best to re-educate. But its not my job and I'm not a red notice, so I'm having little effect.
It does seem to me to be another company mess which just happens to be a useful tool for alienation and barrier building.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fraud
PC767 wrote:
You previously wrote:
A free upgrade is fraud. Why is that not clear to everyone?
The BASI13 anti-fraud policy can be found here:
https://planetba.baplc.com/general/a...9?OpenDocument
I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.
Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.
The BASI13 anti-fraud policy can be found here:
https://planetba.baplc.com/general/a...9?OpenDocument
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
The debate centres around the criminal definintion and the company definition.
During the middle of the dispute the company email senior cabin crew that upgrades were not acceptable and would be liable to a charge of fraud. There was some degree of contradiction with the JPMs regarding a Captains authority.
This situation was deliberate and has not been clarified even though asset protection accept the wording of the policy if flawed.
During the middle of the dispute the company email senior cabin crew that upgrades were not acceptable and would be liable to a charge of fraud. There was some degree of contradiction with the JPMs regarding a Captains authority.
This situation was deliberate and has not been clarified even though asset protection accept the wording of the policy if flawed.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767,
Indeed they did. Certain IFCE managers took it upon themselves to issue SCCMs with a copy of BASI13. This had recently reared its head due to ground staff selling upgrades on, I believe, a bespoke website for the purpose. As there was pecuniary advantage, fraud had taken place. The whole point about this is that in neither a legal, nor a company sense does the other upgrading issue constitute fraud, hence Asset Protection saying the example used in BASI13 was inappropriate. As there's no financial gain and no intent to deceive there's no fraud however it's cut. I grant you though, that until the document is re-issued, it serves to add nothing but confusion!
ATB
MrB
Indeed they did. Certain IFCE managers took it upon themselves to issue SCCMs with a copy of BASI13. This had recently reared its head due to ground staff selling upgrades on, I believe, a bespoke website for the purpose. As there was pecuniary advantage, fraud had taken place. The whole point about this is that in neither a legal, nor a company sense does the other upgrading issue constitute fraud, hence Asset Protection saying the example used in BASI13 was inappropriate. As there's no financial gain and no intent to deceive there's no fraud however it's cut. I grant you though, that until the document is re-issued, it serves to add nothing but confusion!
ATB
MrB
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767
The situation was probably caused by a meddling manager with not enough to do, sending an email which grasped the wrong end of the stick.
Disaffected cabin crew have capitalised on this to 'get back' at people. As pointed out, if they do get their staff travel back at some point, then this could blow up in their faces. What goes around, etc.
JPMs cannot be contradicted re Capts authority, the latter always over-rides.
Cabin crew have always been able to move passengers around the cabins for all sorts of reasons, they have always done this under the Captain's authority, although, crucially, they may not have realised this was so
Several Capts are now briefing their crews to inform them before moving anyone, re-emphasising the correct state of affairs.
Carribean boy, you are misinformed.
The situation was probably caused by a meddling manager with not enough to do, sending an email which grasped the wrong end of the stick.
Disaffected cabin crew have capitalised on this to 'get back' at people. As pointed out, if they do get their staff travel back at some point, then this could blow up in their faces. What goes around, etc.
JPMs cannot be contradicted re Capts authority, the latter always over-rides.
Cabin crew have always been able to move passengers around the cabins for all sorts of reasons, they have always done this under the Captain's authority, although, crucially, they may not have realised this was so
Several Capts are now briefing their crews to inform them before moving anyone, re-emphasising the correct state of affairs.
Carribean boy, you are misinformed.
Last edited by strikemaster82; 20th Jun 2010 at 13:33. Reason: Posted at same time as MrBunker!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeThirdEffect
I don't have a problem with that people have different opinions. I just can't understand why PCCC are insisting on not stepping forward. It's a crucial time for everyone. When are they going to do it? After the dispute is over? As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.
I don't have a problem with that people have different opinions. I just can't understand why PCCC are insisting on not stepping forward. It's a crucial time for everyone. When are they going to do it? After the dispute is over? As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM wrote:
How can they feel safe when your union disgracefully keeps calling on Willie Walsh to rescind the penalties handed out to pro-strike cabin crew who were found guilty of bullying and harassment.
As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.
Last edited by Caribbean Boy; 20th Jun 2010 at 18:21.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.
Despite BA's intolerance of bullying and harassment they did not feel able to report the damage to management.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767
UK Opt Out -
" To give effect to the UK’s opt-out, a protocol to be added to the future reform treaty will state that:
The charter does not extend the ability of the [European] Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom, except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
The effect of this protocol will essentially be that the charter cannot be used to challenge current UK legislation in the courts or to introduce new rights in UK law. The outgoing UK prime minister, Tony Blair, attending his last EU summit in June, said that the outcome of the talks made it ‘absolutely clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not going to be justiciable in British courts or alter British law’. "
" To give effect to the UK’s opt-out, a protocol to be added to the future reform treaty will state that:
The charter does not extend the ability of the [European] Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom, except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
The effect of this protocol will essentially be that the charter cannot be used to challenge current UK legislation in the courts or to introduce new rights in UK law. The outgoing UK prime minister, Tony Blair, attending his last EU summit in June, said that the outcome of the talks made it ‘absolutely clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not going to be justiciable in British courts or alter British law’. "